X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com From: geda AT psjt DOT org (Stephan =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6ttcher?=) To: "Marvin Dickens \(mpdickens\@gmail.com\) \[via geda-user\@delorie.com\]" Subject: Re: [geda-user] Stay or go? References: <98D1C4E4-581D-4A03-94E4-E0330960EADF AT wellesley DOT edu> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:05:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Marvin Dickens's message of "Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:25:03 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk "Marvin Dickens (mpdickens AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" writes: > ... Free software is the future. > OTOH, gEDA developers have to figure out how to move forward > embrace current and future user needs (The usual stuff like: usability, > modern work flow, modern gui and etc...) Candidly, at our organization, > we do not see this happening. I my eyes, "modern gui and etc" was never the emphasis and strength of gEDA. I assumed that there are offerings, even free software, available for those who put those aspects on the top of their priority list. I experience "modern gui and etc" as requiring tons of desptopy libraries, which may sooner or later lead to the requirement to install systemd just to be able to run a cad application. I am very happy that there is a lesstif GUI for PCB, so that I will be able to run PCB after gtk is fully Gnomiefied. > What we see are personality clashes between developers > and an unwillingness to embrace change, new technology or new > paradigms in computer science of any type or kind - Even though in > computer science and engineering change is a certainty. or an unwillingness to embrace KISS, transparency, unix. > OTOH, we have no room to complain because gEDA developers create code > gratis I reject that argument. A project/developer that get the code distributed to users, via distributions or through separate channels, with the resulting testing, community building and mindshare, needs to accept some responsibility towards those users. > and a reasonable argument can be made that if I or anyone else is > unhappy with the state of things we can write the additions and/or > changes ourselves. That is a major point of free software... > This dynamic makes it impossible to include the tool set in our > business plan - Its too risky. -- Stephan